Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 323 (AP)

Inuganti Bhavani v. Inuganti Girija Devi

2004-03-16

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2004
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners filed O. S. No. 39 of 2000 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, pithapuram, against the respondents for the relief of partition of the suit schedule properties. Trial of the suit is in progress. 1st petitioner (PW1) stated that she married one Venkata Jagannadharao and that the 2nd petitioner is their son. It was alleged that during his life time, Venkata Jagannadharao married the 1st defendant, even while the marriage between himself and PW1 was subsisting. ( 2 ) ON behalf of the respondents, DWs 1 to 3, were examined. DW4 by name n. Adinarayana Murthy was examined in chief. During the course of his cross-examination, he was confronted with a photograph, which was already marked in Ex. A3 and two other photographs. An objection was raised on behalf of the respondents stating that the photographs are not relevant to the aspect on which dw4 was deposing before the trial court. The trial court sustained the objection. The same is challenged in this revision. ( 3 ) SRI Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that DW4 has categorically stated in his evidence that he knew late Jagannadharao and that dw1 married him (Jagannadharao) and it was in this context, that DW4 was confronted with the photographs of Jagannadharao. Placing reliance upon Section 138 of the Evidence Act, the learned counsel submits that such a step is permissible and that the view taken by the Trial Court cannot be sustained. ( 4 ) SRI M. Rammohan, learned counsel for the respondents submits that DW4 was examined for the limited purpose of establishing the fact that DW1 repaid the debts incurred by late Jagannadharao and identification of Jagannadharao was outside the scope of his evidence. ( 5 ) THE principles of examination of witnesses are delineated under Chapter 10 of the Evidence Act, almost, with mathematical prescission. A witness can be examined to establish a fact in issue or a relevant fact. These expressions, in turn are defined under Section 3 of the Act. Under Section 136 of the Act, the trial Court is entitled to ascertain the purpose for which a particular witness is examined. It is only on being satisfied that the evidence of such witness would throw light on the fact in issue or the relevant fact, that he may be permitted to be examined. Under Section 136 of the Act, the trial Court is entitled to ascertain the purpose for which a particular witness is examined. It is only on being satisfied that the evidence of such witness would throw light on the fact in issue or the relevant fact, that he may be permitted to be examined. Section 138 of the Act incorporates certain important principles in the matter of examination of the witness in chief. It insists that examination in chief and cross must relate to the relevant facts. The cross examination, however, is not restricted to the facts, which are testified in the chief examination. As long as it relates to the relevant facts, the cross-examination cannot be confined to any limits. ( 6 ) IN the present case, the trial court had restricted the scope of cross-examination. Such a restriction was permissible, if it only was found that the proposed cross-examination did not relate to the relevant fact, for proving which, DW4 was examined in chief. Hence, it is necessary to identify the relevant fact, for which DW4 was examined. ( 7 ) THE chief examination of DW4 was very brief, and it is beneficial to extract it. "i am having fancy shop at Jagannadhapuram in Kakinada. The 1st defendant is residing opposite to my house. She is residing in that house since 20 years. Jagannaharao is the husband of 1st defendant. I know him very well. Jagannadharao used to borrow amounts from me now and then and discharge the same. Jagannadharao borrowed a sum of Rs. 11,000/- from me on 26. 04. 1999. He executed pronote. My father has scribed Ex. B. 9. Narasimhulunaidu is the attestor of Ex. B9 who is my neighbour. He did not discharge the debt vide ex. B. 9 since he died. I demanded the debt from the 1st defendant. She sought one month for payment and discharged the debt. The discharge endorsement was also marked as Ex. B. 10. Villa Srinu who is the 1st defendant s neighbour attested Ex. B-10 endorsement". A reading of this discloses that the respondents elicited several facts through dw4, such as his acquaintance with late Jagannadharao, the factum of jagannadharao marrying DW1, and the discharge of the said debt by DW1. All these three aspects are relevant to the fact in issue, viz. , whether late jagannadha Rao married PW1. B-10 endorsement". A reading of this discloses that the respondents elicited several facts through dw4, such as his acquaintance with late Jagannadharao, the factum of jagannadharao marrying DW1, and the discharge of the said debt by DW1. All these three aspects are relevant to the fact in issue, viz. , whether late jagannadha Rao married PW1. While the 1st petitioner pleaded her marriage with late Jagannadharao, DW1 disputed it. DW4 spoke of his acquaintance with Jagannadharao for the past 20 years and his knowledge about the marriage between Jagannadharao and DW1. Since jagannadharao is no more, the identification of him by DW4 was not proved in clinching manner. Things would have been different, had the respondents shown any photographs of late Jagannadharao, in the chief examination. Everything was left at large. The person whom DW4 recognised as Jagannadharao is no more. It was, in this context, that PW1 wanted to confront Dw4 with the photograph of jagannadharao. The same could not have been treated as alien to the fact in issue, much less the relevant fact. Since DW4 claimed acquaintance with late jagannadharao for morethan 20 years, he was also expected to be aware of his marriage with PW1 if it took place. Hence, it is open to PW1 to suggest to DW4 about her marriage with Jagannadharao. Therefore, the view taken by the trial court does not appear to be correct. Section 138 of the Evidence Act mandates that cross-examination need not be confined to the facts spoken to during the chief examination. PW1 had the liberty to elicit anything from the said witness as long it is related to the relevant facts. ( 8 ) HENCE, the civil revision petition is allowed and the trial court is directed to permit PW1 to confront DW4 with the photographs and cross-examine him in relation to the said photographs as long as the same relates to the relevant facts. The suit is of the year 2000, but for the fact that it was stayed by this Court, substantial progress would have taken place. . The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, not latter than three months from the date of receipt of this order. No costs.